December 30, 2011

Make sure you've got enough to last a lifetime... with extras to leave to your children and grandchildren... so that they can know that once there was light... and it was a warm light... there were bulbs that glowed. And the heartless government, which had no feeling for warmth and glow, took those bulbs away.

CFL's today are far improved over those from just a few years ago. Instant start, and different types of light tone available (daylight, bright white, soft white). Dimmable versions are now hitting the market.

I've bought fluorescent tubes... because my house, before I renovated, had a ceiling full of them in the kitchen. I bought some kind of special decorator tubes with a more incandescent color. And I bought that kind of tube for my office and had them installed in place of the standard bulbs.

Incompetant Republicans can't even repeal a ban. Just because there are no funds for enforcement doesn't mean big retailers are going to knowingly violate the law. In some ways this is a comment on the whole welfare state - the assumption that without vigorous enforcement, everyone will ignore the law.

Speaking of hg - What's really fucking stupid is that on one hand the Feds are forcing coal-fired power plants to shut down in name of preventing a minute amount of mercury from entering the environment while on the other hand they try to force everyone to use mercury-filled lightbulbs.

My "fuck you" is a substantive comment in this case, as the idea of expending the mental energy to compose a reasoned reply to someone who thinks that it's somehow virtuous to support the limitation of any freedom, even an insignificant-seeming one, is just to wearying to consider. It's also out of the question to bother responding reasonably to the kind of retarded cretin who thinks it clever to call someone a "hillbilly" because they prefer one kind of a lightbulb over another.

Local news had a bit on the ban...said it wasn't a ban, just a change in energy efficiency. You will notice more LUMENS of light for less wattage.

I don't give a crap how well lit the inside of the livestock waterer may be, I want it WARM so it doesn't freeze.

My barnyard-based common sense tells me an *old* 75-watt bulb is more energy efficient than the manufacture installed 320 watt heat coil. 60-watt bulbs don't give off enough heat in the -20 January cold snaps, or if it's warmed up to zero but windy.

I bought several hundred incandescents last month (oh, and don't forget the "torpedo tips" for sconces, chandeliers and porch lights). But I'm heading back to Amazon for more because I don't know how many I will need to live out the rest of my life. I just know I can't live one day without them (and if you break a CFL? Don't even get me started on the mercury exposure).

I even carry them with me on trips so I can switch out the CFLs in hotel rooms. I cannot bear those blasted CFLs.

FYI, I saw the "dimmer" CFLs at Costco today. $29.95 for ONE bulb. Although cheaper than a fire, I suppose. &@#*!%!

Here's a nice (liberal?) family whose house caught on fire when they put a CFL bulb in an ordinary dimmer light.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, whose department has become a venture capital firm for crony capitalism and costly flops at creating “green jobs,” praises the policy of essentially banishing the incandescent light bulb as “taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.”

Even to the extent that they did do anything, it was only temporary. So the biggest thing that they did to "fix" the problem was to introduce more UNCERTAINTY into the market -- companies aren't sure what the law might be tomorrow, so they won't bother to even make or sell the bulbs that people want.

As for airbags, they too have caused a number of injuries. But what do you expect from having something explode at high velocity and strike you in the face?

Dangerous enough that children must sit in the back seat (where there are no airbags) so they don't get their heads smashed in.

And then there is the danger presented from not being able to see to operate the vehicle after they have deployed.

And don't get me started on the government mandated use of lighter materials to make the cars, which have increased the likelihood of an accident resulting in a fatality, not to mention the higher repair costs even without an injury, which forces people to pay the repair shop money that would otherwise have gone to something like rent or food.

How about this for an idea? Government stay the hell away from people!

Speaking of cars, what with the new CAFE standards that have been dictated by Obama, standards that completely ignore the laws of physics, not only will light bulbs be banned, but most motor vehicles will be effectively banned as well since it is impossible to safely engineer a ton of mass to be moved 55 miles on a single gallon of gasoline, especially if that gas is spiked with ethanol. And even if they can do that with one experimental death-car, having an entire fleet average that mpg will be economically impossible.

Ann, I have to confess -- I love you like a sister, but I can't fathom your obsession with incandescent light bulbs. You talk about warm light, and glow ... both characteristics you can obtain with compact fluorescent bulbs.

So ... what then ... ? Is it just a libertarian streak that makes it difficult for you to accept having the government tell you what kind of bulb you can have in your house? Okay, that's legitimate ... but I think you should admit it, rather than trying to dress it up in some kind of faux aesthetic critique. It doesn't wash.

I don't even have a position one way or the other on the efficiency standards for the light bulbs, since I don't know enough about it to have a strong opinion about the matter.

I do know enough to know that incandescent bulbs haven't been banned, and so I think its worth pointing out to the tin-foil-hat-black-helicopter conspiracy theorists like Althouse and the commenters here.

Let's imagine a government policy which discourages and thereby disrupts the supply of a particular good. Is the policy analogous to a ban?

As I understand it, the "incandescent lightbulb ban" obliges manufacturers of lightbulbs (of any kind) to meet certain prerequisites ("efficiency"), and it would not be economical for manufacturers to produce compliant incandescent bulbs. The "ban" is thus mediated by private entrepeneurial choice: The regulation doesn't ban incandescent bulbs, it just creates a regulatory framework in which the product becomes unavailable in the marketplace.

Now imagine that a state government imposes a regulation that medical facilities wishing to offer abortion must meet certain prerequisites ("health and safety," informed consent," etc.), and it would not be economical* for clinics to comply. The "ban" is thus mediated by private entrepeneurial choice: The regulation doesn't ban abortion, it just creates a regulatory framework in which the service becomes unavailable in the marketplace. Has the state banned abortion?

___________*Absent market distortions not present in the lightbulb debate—fanatical pro-abortion ideology could lead some outfits like PP to operate at a loss in some states.

MadisonMan said..."A law that can't be enforced isn't much of a law. Although I still do stop at red lights even at 3 AM when no one is around."

It still impacts the market because a responsible business with a product cycle of more than four years can't take the risk that the next administration won't be more zealous than its underenforcing predecessor. Unenforced laws aren't lagan so much as they are mines.

Chu's comment about saving us from wasting our own money really sticks in my craw.

I pay roughly $100/month for electricity. If I swap out every bulb for a CFL maybe I save 5% overall on my electric bill. Most of our electricity goes to non-light stuff like the oven/range, electronics, etc. So now I'm down to $95. Thanks Mr. Chu.

If I look at my other expenses, I pay tens of thousands of dollars a year towards our house and house-related items. I pay thousands of dollars a year towards cars and car-related expenses. I'm trying to pay thousands a year towards my own retirement fund.

If these fucking Democrat geniuses could find a way for me to save even 3% on my housing or transportation expenses, or add 3% to my retirement, I'd be waaaayyy better off. Instead they spend thousands of dollars writing and printing instruction booklets on how to clean up a broken CFL (it's basically a hazmat site and can't be vacuumed up lest you disperse more mercury into the air! But like some lefty douche said on the thread a few weeks ago, if you've got a pregnant woman in the house just open the window.)

A hillbilly is someone who lives in the hills of Northern Ireland and supports William of Orange as King of England. Why do we keep calling people bad names because of things that happened centuries ago.

@Andy R:I do know enough to know that incandescent bulbs haven't been banned, and so I think its worth pointing out to the tin-foil-hat-black-helicopter conspiracy theorists like Althouse and the commenters here.

Don't be disingenuous. Of course we know that incandescent bulbs haven't been banned in the statutory language. Nevertheless, I will no longer be able to purchase 100W incandescent bulbs at Wal-Mart or Target or their competitors.

Do you think Andy R. would understand if this blog were to ban all comments from anyone who has ever used an avatar with its hat on sideways? Or would he say "Hey, I haven't actually been banned! I can't comment there any more, but the new rule doesn't actually name me personally, so it's no big deal!"

CFL-haters can take a bit of solace in the fact that LED bulbs may become the standard before long. Right now they're very expensive, and the light quality isn't the best, but the prices are likely to drop soon even as the quality rises.

Andr R. Perhaps you are intentionally obtuse but i will try to explain.1. The govt has set specifications for 100 watt bulbs that cannot be met and still sell the bulbs at a profit2. Since they cannot be met the manufacturers have ceased production3. They will not be available as a result of 1 and 24. Why dont you produce them according to the new impossible standards and sell them cheaply. You can make up your losses in volume

Andy R. Out of curiosity, what do you think the law we are discussing concerns? Is there actually no law and we are hallucinating? I am interested in exactly howvdumb you reslly are but hoping against hope that you are tooling us.

Is he saying that I can actually buy actual 100-watt incandescents in my local stores after midnight tomorrow? Because that doesn't seem to be true. I got the last box of them at my local Kroger's a week ago, marked down as a closeout.

Or is he saying that I would be able to buy them if they were able to meet the stringent new rules, but they won't, so I can't?

If that's what he means, I'll change my hypothetical. Do you think Andy R. would understand if this blog were to ban all comments from anyone who has ever used an avatar with its hat on sideways, unless said comments were (a) perfect palindromes, and (b) perfectly spelled and grammatically correct? Because that would make it impossible for him to post here, without technically banning him.

Similarly, it will soon be impossible to buy the lightbulbs I want to buy: they will not be available, and anyone who says they are not being banned is a contemptible quibbler playing with the meanings of words in a totally dishonest way.

Phillips does have high efficiency incandescent bulbs called EvoVantage. They aren't as bright as Phillips own 60 watt bulbs and I haven't been able to find them in town. The Home Depot site lists them at $6 for a six pack. It's break even in my area, though, since the savings doesn't make up for the price.

If you look at Andy R.'s profile, he lives in Jerusalem, so I doubt he can help show us where to buy them (incandescents) in the U.S.A. after tomorrow.

Nah, I live in Atlanta now. I guess I haven't updated my profile in the last three years. I didn't realize it said I was in Jerusalem and I should probably change that.

Similarly, that hat picture is, I would guess, 4 or 5 years old, and I think I've worn a hat two or three times since then. I don't actually like them, although I do like that picture for reasons other than the hat being askew.

Here's the issue, hat dude: The only way they can meet the new efficiency standards is to make the filament burn hotter, which means your "high efficiency" light bulbs won't last very long. This is due to the laws of physics.

So technically, you're right, they haven't banned incandescent bulbs, but they've made them worse than they were before. And who knows if incandescents are even a viable commercial product anymore with this new, hotter-burning filament?

Bottom line is, why the fuck is the government even involved with designing lightbulbs? It's unneccessary, overbearing and absurd.

At one point Phillips made very nice 52 watt bulbs that I used in hallways. At my previous place, we had several three light fixtures; I'd just put in two bulbs. At the place before that I tried CFLs. They went green in two months and died. Even when they worked, they were dim; it made you think a light had burned out (had the same experience in a hotel two summers ago--they used the best CFLs I'd seen save for the dimness problem.)

I looked up Andy's recommended bulb on Amazon. The price per bulb was $3.56 - ouch! Then there's the shipping: "Note: $7.03 shipping when purchased from Wayfair. Not eligible for Amazon Prime." So I'm supposed to spend $10.59 per bulb? Why? And the reviewers say these particular bulbs don't last long, and often stick in the sockets. In other words, overpriced crap.

Home Depot charges less ($3.17 for 2), but they advertise a lifetime of 0.9 years, which seems awfully short, and the one (1 star) review says his first two lasted 3 days and 3 weeks respectively. In other words, overpriced crap.

Now let's see Andy R. post his next comment as a grammatically-correct palindrome.

Like me, Andy R. is a queer; let's appeal to his vanity. Andy, honey, have you ever really looked at your face when lit by fluorescent lights at close range? That pallid light doesn't lie: you're not the twink you used to be, babe.

What's the over under on how long until Althouse makes another post about how incandescent bulbs have been banned and a bunch of you commenters chime in about it and I have to explain to all of you how you are wrong and you can buy them on Amazon or Home Depot?

How long until hat-boy admits that the incandescents that will still be for sale after tomorrow are difficult to find (I've never seen one anywhere I shop for bulbs), grossly overpriced, don't last, and generally suck? The government is in fact banning the only bulbs many of us want to buy and forcing us to either (a) buy huge stacks of the good ones now and hope they never send around bulb inspectors to confiscate them, (b) spend way too much money on bulbs that are either sickeningly off-color, poisonous, overpriced, shoddily made, or some combination of those, or (c) sit in the dark.

Hat boy is so proud that he's technically correct that we will still be able to buy incandescent bulbs of some sort, without caring that the ones we will be graciously permitted to buy suck, and that only a stupid law will prevent us from buying the kind that don't suck.

I'm sure he's also proud that he's not technically an anal orifice, but again the technical difference is unimportant compared to the fundamental (see what I did there?) identity.

I like to read in bed, and I find that only traditional incandescents work for me. How dare the government tell me what I can or cannot do in the privacy of my own bedroom?

What's the over under on how long until Althouse makes another post about how incandescent bulbs have been banned and a bunch of you commenters chime in about it and I have to explain to all of you how you are wrong and you can buy them on Amazon or Home Depot?

How so? The entire point of fluorescent efficiency is that it gets rid of the "wasted" heat that the incandescent bulbs gave off responsible for the reddish glow and turns it to the straight cold light end of the spectrum thereby using less energy.

Any "warm glow" quality the CF can manufacture to make them less aesthetically repulsive will be fake by definition. It's not imaginary, it's a reality.

We just changed out the heat lights in the bathroom and I'm MISERABLE. I loved those things...better than any heater.

Althouse: A several months' extension was put in effect so right now this very day is not in fact "last chance" and later we'll find about what really was behind that extension but regardless the truth is that the most important damage already was done and that is this: yet another closing down of a factory/industry in the U.S. full stop.

Make no mistake that at least there are very large entities that will benefit immensely and for them nothing about all of this has been surprising at all including from the very start: The end game is theirs and that was the point start to finish.

I respect a lot of what you have to say about various things, but not on this subject. You insist on comparing apples to oranges. I will never accept your inapt, and inept, notion of equivalence in terms of light bulbs.

How so? The entire point of fluorescent efficiency is that it gets rid of the "wasted" heat that the incandescent bulbs gave off responsible for the reddish glow and turns it to the straight cold light end of the spectrum thereby using less energy.

Any "warm glow" quality the CF can manufacture to make them less aesthetically repulsive will be fake by definition. It's not imaginary, it's a reality.

That's not correct. "Cooler" colours of light are actually the result of higher temperature incandescence. That's why lamps get more yellow/red as you dim them (and the filament temperature drops due to decreasing power and thus dissipation). It's also why halogen lamps (which are technically a form of incandescent lamp) produce a more "white" light from a hotter filament.

But fluorescent lights work by a completely different mechanism. The colour of light they emit has nothing to do with their temperature. They work by exciting one or more "phosphors" (with ultraviolet light, emitted from a mercury vapour arc) which then fluoresce and give out light at a particular frequency.

By mixing different phosphors, it is possible to produce an emitted light which looks more or less white, although the resulting spectrum is very spikey, hence the generally poor colour rendering index (CRI) of fluorescent lamps.

By fiddling with the phospor mix, you can get a more yellow ("warm") or blue ("cool") looking light. By having more phosphors, the CRI is improved.

I like using fluorescent lamps (not CFLs) with four ("quad") phosphors, in "daylight". To my eyes this is a good approximation of noonday sun although some objects still look the wrong colour. But I live in a warm climate where the extra heat from incandescents is not welcome. YMMV.

BTW Quad Phospor tubes (linear or circular) are also very efficient, at up to 100lm/W. That's better than some LEDs. The best LEDs are around 200lm/W but are very expensive and need serious heatsinking if they are to be sufficiently bright.

I've disassembled several failed screw-in CFLs -- both cheap and moderate price products. All made in China and all built with parts that are incredibly marginally rated for the expected voltage and temperature. The surprise is not that they fail at least as frequently as a typical 1000 hour incandescent but rather that they last as long as they do.

Also, some CFLs are not rated for operation with base up, which is essential in certain fixtures. (The electronics in the CFL base of these lamps do not have adequate heat removal when operated in any orientation other than base down.

I should also mention that CFLs are peak-draw devices. This may be esoteric, but it has major ramifications for the electric power grid. A standard incandescent more or less draws current through the full 360 degrees of the 60 Hz house current waveform. A CFL only draws power during a small portion of the cycle, near the positive and negative peaks. This reduces the efficiency of the electrical power grid. It's possible to spend more money by revising CFL design to correct some of this peak load problem, which will lead to even further regulation and increased costs to CFL purchasers and utilities.

LED illumination may solve some of these problems, but certainly not all.

For those of us who are also ham radio operators, CFLs create enormous levels of "electronic smog" or radio frequency interference. Interference suppression components add cost and are typically not fitted to any of the lamps I disassembled. Indeed, I strongly suspect the lamps I looked at could not comply with even the FCC's loose RFI rules, despite their markings to the contrary. (Not uncommon with Chinese products; the regulator compliance markings are regarded as decorative items to be added for appearance.)

Until they are regulated out (I think it's 2013 or so) I recommend 100 watt screw-in halogen lamps. They have a longer life than a standard tungsten incandescent and emit more light. The color is a bit higher in the spectrum than a standard tungsten lamp, but not so much as to be objectionable.

I've disassembled several failed screw-in CFLs -- both cheap and moderate price products. All made in China and all built with parts that are incredibly marginally rated for the expected voltage and temperature. The surprise is not that they fail at least as frequently as a typical 1000 hour incandescent but rather that they last as long as they do.

I understand that in some cases, components in CFLs are used in ways they aren't even designed or rated for. This is why I prefer proper fluorescent lamps. A decent electronic ballast will last for the life of many tubes and the tubes typically last a lot longer than a CFL anyway.

Also, some CFLs are not rated for operation with base up, which is essential in certain fixtures. (The electronics in the CFL base of these lamps do not have adequate heat removal when operated in any orientation other than base down.

Many are also not designed to be operate in sealed fittings; they require air convection for cooling. I'm not sure what we're supposed to put in sealed fittings. Halogen replacements may not be a good idea in sealed fittings either, due to the high operating temperature and sufficiently bright LEDs definitely aren't (if they fit!) for the same reason.

I should also mention that CFLs are peak-draw devices. This may be esoteric, but it has major ramifications for the electric power grid. A standard incandescent more or less draws current through the full 360 degrees of the 60 Hz house current waveform. A CFL only draws power during a small portion of the cycle, near the positive and negative peaks. This reduces the efficiency of the electrical power grid. It's possible to spend more money by revising CFL design to correct some of this peak load problem, which will lead to even further regulation and increased costs to CFL purchasers and utilities.

LED illumination may solve some of these problems, but certainly not all.

CFLs typically have a poor power factor (well below 0.5). This increases transmission losses and causes uneven loading on generators. Utilities can correct it at the substation to some extent. However since domestic lighting loads are a relatively small proportion of all power usage, it isn't a major problem (if it were, utilities would be making more noise about getting it fixed). Note that this is also why forcing people to switch to CFLs is pretty pointless.

Proper fluorescents are sometimes fitted with power factor correction capacitors but they still aren't as good as resistive loads like incandescents or halogens.

LED lamps can have a good power factor if they are driven from power supplies with active power factor correction. They are somewhat complex though and so are perhaps not as reliable as the more standard kind.

For those of us who are also ham radio operators, CFLs create enormous levels of "electronic smog" or radio frequency interference. Interference suppression components add cost and are typically not fitted to any of the lamps I disassembled. Indeed, I strongly suspect the lamps I looked at could not comply with even the FCC's loose RFI rules, despite their markings to the contrary. (Not uncommon with Chinese products; the regulator compliance markings are regarded as decorative items to be added for appearance.)

It's tough to keep the EMI from switchmode power supplies (which is what drives a CFL) to a reasonable level. They operate by switching fairly high currents at moderate frequencies (typically 200-2000kHz) which unfortunately happens to cover pretty much the whole MW/SW band. The internal components can't help but act as antennas and quite a bit of extra shielding and suppression components would be required to filter it out which would substantially increase the size, weight and cost.

It's true that a lot of consumer products carry compliance logos when they likely have never even been tested. The authorities don't seem too concerned.

here's a clue...why don't you write your congressman to repeal the ban? And if it's important enough, vote someone else in?

This is drama-queenship at it's worse. In the real world no one (yet) is bitching about not having incandescent light bulbs, so long as there are light bulbs available. If anything, people will complain at the expense, but I have YET to hear anyone complain about the warmth of a lifebulb.

This complaining is more in league with conspiracy theories and has done nothing for the democratic process other than sniping. And I find it rather disappointing.

Sabinal, it seems to me that you haven't been following all of the Althouse posts on the topic. People have legitimate complaints about warmth, or lack thereof, when it comes to non-incandescents.

Andy gets blowback not because of his hat but because of the cocksure way he presents himself. When you make snarky comments you get snark back. Andy's a big boy and has shown he can handle it.

Your other complaint that there's some direct-line easy fix is just wrong and shows a facile understanding of how government regulation works. Creeping regulations are hard to stanch because of people like you saying "Well, I'm happy to have any kind of light bulb" while the reality is that this represents an intrusion of government into free markets and private homes. It will not save money and energy on any large scale, and it will have unintended, negative consequences. Instead of undoing it the government will likely add more regulations to "fix" the unintended consequences. And this accumulates.

Think of these regulations as a massive tangling of cord or string. It's easy to add more string to the tangle, but how are you supposed to untangle the whole thing without cutting the shit out of it?

In the real world no one (yet) is bitching about not having incandescent light bulbs, so long as there are light bulbs available.

A LOT of people are angry about this - and the anger will grow as the more commonly used wattage incandescent are phased out (60W & 40W).

Many people prefer the quality of the incandescent - not necessarily the warmth. And they are angry about the government interference with their choices, especially when the alternatives are so sub-par.

I think there are a lot of people who believe the government will reserve itself on this and therefore they see no need to get upset. I hope they’re right.

Andy, I appreciate your adherence to the letter of the law, but in addition to market forces there's also a little something called intent. I'm out of my element here posing as someone who knows anything about law, so anyone, anyone, feel free to correct me, but the reason our judicial system is so large is because the letter of the law is not nearly enough, and we expend the most energy deriving intent, both of laws and the defendants' actions.

To me it seems the intent of this law is to pretty much make it impossible to make a certain type of incandescent. Don't confuse intent with explicit text. Sometimes they can be different animals and construed as such all the way up to the Supreme Court.

"I pay roughly $100/month for electricity. If I swap out every bulb for a CFL maybe I save 5% overall on my electric bill."

Then the electric company lobbies for a 10% rate increase because they aren't making a reasonable profit in the captive marketplace. You get higher electric bills for using less and are forced to buy more expensive bulbs that you don't like.

If it ended there, it would be bad but tolerable. What will happen to that mercury in the CFLs? Everybody will recycle them responsibly for no cost at the free, preexisting recycling centers - or not. None will ever break. Mercury will become nontoxic. The government will actually promote freedom. And Obama will be as good a president as he thinks he is.

I am on an e-mail thread which has a slobbering Dem supporter who has a (science) PhD.

He, as a propagandist, is much given to sophistries which "prove" that, despite what we see with our very eyes, everything is rosy & we, er, dim bulbs should re-elect Obama.

He is treated with much disdain by most, but some treat him as if he were a real person rather than a DNC robot & get mad at me when I question his bona fides.

Here? Andy R has done a bait & switch by showing that the law, in its majestic equality or some such, does not, you know, er, um, ban, repeat ban, 100 Watt incandescent bulbs, & that, in any event, some 100 Watt substitute is really, you know, er, um, the same thing, so what's your problem? He will probably create some doubt in some insecure dolt about why all this fuss.

Mission accomplished.

PS Many a retailer would have us believe that its $200 suit is the exact same suit as a $1,000 name-brand one. I wonder if the Andys or my science guy believe that.

Hey, look a plain “quarterpounder” in MacD’s is, ounce for ounce, probably as nutritional as a prime cut steak in a NY steakhouse.

For the record, I started switching to fluorescent bulbs before it was mandated because this conservative *does* care about conserving energy. But... it has become apparent they often don't last any longer and sometimes they burn out faster. And how the heck to dispose of them?!? It's a great idea but isn't working out as well as I'd hoped.

PS I went to a restaurant which claimed that it served "Mom's apple pie". Wasn't the same as I remember, but perhaps at my age my mind is playing tricks on me.

From the statute:

‘‘(ii) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘general serviceincandescent lamp’ does not include the followingincandescent lamps:‘‘(I) An appliance lamp.‘‘(II) A black light lamp.‘‘(III) A bug lamp.‘‘(IV) A colored lamp.‘‘(V) An infrared lamp.‘‘(VI) A left-hand thread lamp.‘‘(VII) A marine lamp.‘‘(VIII) A marine signal service lamp.‘‘(IX) A mine service lamp.‘‘(X) A plant light lamp.‘‘(XI) A reflector lamp.‘‘(XII) A rough service lamp.‘‘(XIII) A shatter-resistant lamp (including ashatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp).‘‘(XIV) A sign service lamp.‘‘(XV) A silver bowl lamp.‘‘(XVI) A showcase lamp.‘‘(XVII) A 3-way incandescent lamp.‘‘(XVIII) A traffic signal lamp.‘‘(XIX) A vibration service lamp.

Surprised there was no mention of the poor women and children in China that are ingesting Mercury and enormous amounts of phosphorous during the manufacturing process. And I am sure they have OSHA laws as stringent as ours and a Big Brother union looking out for them. Sickening,hypocritical, idiotic progressives. Another example of their true misogynistic nature. (Especially the "Hey" dude at the top. Lying about his own mother - unforgivable-in most cultures anyhow.)

Re my previous post:Not that China cares--"All forms of mercury penetrate the placental barrier and should be considered terratogenic and reproductive effectors.

The effects from exposure to excessive levels of airborne mercury or skin contact with mercury compounds may not be noticeable for months or years."http://www.ehs.gatech.edu/chemical/mercury_and_compounds.pdf

(Note: Modern light dimmers use a TRIAC and no rheostat (have not heard that word for 20 years or so). They are VERY efficient. I use trailing edge dimmers and these dimmers also slowly turn on the light (dark to dimmer setting in about 2 secs) to further prolong the life of your INCANDESCENT. Do not be fooled by some of the current false news about light dimmers. They are efficient).

- In lighting, more efficient than STANDARD INCANDESCENT just leads to very undesirable light

- Do you paint your walls with pure white? or with cold-off-white? I hope not. If you want comfort, you paint with warm-off-white (the yellow and reds). Just like you would choose an INCANDESCENT (reddish to yellowish-white).

- CFL is cold light (you can try to filter it and get 'warm' but there is a reason why this does not work). White-LED is also cold and eerie.

EVERYTHING IN YOUR ROOM is lit by the light you choose. All this light is reflected, refracted, filtered, so on. It lights your ceiling, floors, sofas, coffee table, clothes, pictures, everything. If you start off with bad light you get strange results. Only full-body INCANDESCENCE can deliver the BILLIONS of frequencies required!

I strongly recommend only using STANDARD INCANDESCENTS. You can use the 30% efficient halogen bulbs but it certainly is not as aesthetically pleasing due to internal glass and many also have a metal clip. It really is a waist of effort just to get 30% (I have measured 25% on one).

STANDARD INCANDESCENT is far cheaper to produce and extremely easy to recycle.

Please note that this BAN is NOT really about SAVING ENERGY.It is a marketing plan as any other. Make the competing product look bad. Make the new product look better. Plant propaganda to make you feel bad by not going for the new product. Nothing new under the sun here. Marketing 101.

Philips wants to push their baby the CFL so on. A 2003 study showed that take up was only 2.5% for Americans who kept going back to the more pleasing light of the INCANDESCENT bulb. So to cut the story short, the INCANDESCENT was banned to further the sale of other lights (Philips, Osram, GE, LED Industry all would like to have more sales).

The INCANDESCENT is our most important form of calm lighting. It is easy to make and recycle. It is easy to hook up to DC and AC and batteries.

The only other sources for this quality light is Fire-place Light, Candle-Light, Kerosene-Lamp Light.

This BAN is ABOUT $$$PROFIT$$$. Trust me. If you put a kink in their profits, they will complain with greater effect than a mere single citizen to Philips/Osram/GE. If they can only make a profit by selling INCANDESCENTS, guess what follows. Its not rocket science but you have to do as I say or it will not work.

I am for all citizens in the world to have the best and most pleasing form of lighting. Your lighting environment effects how you feel and behave. Their is no excuse for bad lighting. CFL/FLU/white-LED are aggressive, unnatural, dangerous, uninviting, hard-to-concentrate-under "Light for the dead" kind of lighting.

For God and Country. America (and the rest of the world). Do not let them take about your INCANDESCENT lighting!

You will regret it!

Come visit Australia. I don't travel Australia anymore.

Australia has such bad and uninviting cold lighting everywhere including hotels, motels, restaurants, coffee shops, shopping centers, so on. Even the street lights have a mix of good and horrible white lighting (it only lights the rain, quite dangerous).Oh sorry, its now called "Hellstralia".

- Sit on your sorry ass crying- Sign up for all petitions (just doesn't go anywhere)- Write to the government (usually just ends up in the waist bin)

HOW TO STOP THE BAN OF INCANDESCENTS

- Speak directly to everyone- If a store so much as starts banning just one kind of light (they will start with 100W first), then immediately email and write to them:

"Since you have banned my choice of light bulbs, I will no longer purchase any items from your store. YOU ARE BANNED.

This ban will not be lifted until all 40W, 60W, 75W, 100W STANDARD INCANDESCENT clear and frosted BULBS/GLOBES are returned to the shelves. Have a good day."

And then get 5 other friends who will each tell 5 other friends to do the same.

This BAN is ABOUT $$$PROFIT$$$. Trust me. If you put a kink in their profits, they will complain with greater effect than a mere single citizen to Philips/Osram/GE. If they can only make a profit by selling INCANDESCENTS, guess what follows. Its not rocket science but you have to do as I say or it will not work.

If you need a REST from the bad lighting from CFL or Fluorescents or white-LED Lighting or too-white, too-bright Halogens, just click on this link and sit back a while, taking in the warm glow of the two INCANDESCENT globes...

http://www.lc-cls.com/SafetyFirst/Lighting/

The take action now to STOP THE BAN OF INCANDESCENTS as instructed above.

Talk to everyone, warning that they are taking away your safe, calm lighting!